# C_2018427EN.01008602.xml

| 26.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/86 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/86

---

Action brought on 19 September 2018 — Oblitas Ruzza/Council

(Case T-551/18)

(2018/C 427/114)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sandra Oblitas Ruzza (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: F. Di Gianni and L. Giuliano, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (2), in so far as their provisions concern the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (2), in so far as their provisions concern the applicant; and

| — | order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested acts are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and lack of precise and consistent evidence.






  — | In this regard, the applicant submits that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment concerning the applicant’s functions and roles and did not disclose a body of precise and consistent evidence in support of its claims. The applicant further claims that the Council failed to conduct a proper assessment of the evidence or, at the very least, that such assessment was manifestly erroneous. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested acts are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and lack of precise and consistent evidence.

—

In this regard, the applicant submits that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment concerning the applicant’s functions and roles and did not disclose a body of precise and consistent evidence in support of its claims. The applicant further claims that the Council failed to conduct a proper assessment of the evidence or, at the very least, that such assessment was manifestly erroneous.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the restrictive measures imposed by the contested acts constitute an unjustified and disproportionate restriction of the applicant’s fundamental right to property. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the restrictive measures imposed by the contested acts constitute an unjustified and disproportionate restriction of the applicant’s fundamental right to property.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 160I, 25.6.2018, p. 12).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 160I, 25.6.2018, p. 5).

---